"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Wednesday, May 17, 2006

US Senate "Titanic" Steams Determinedly Downstream ...

To Red Hot Cuppa Politics post (see below), I add a few words and how Arizona fared.

UPDATE: see Take Back Georgia, for Georgian perspective on the vote.

According to CNN.com Rep. J.D. Hayworth, Republican AZ said of the vote:

It offers a perverse incentive -- the longer and more flagrantly you have broken immigration laws, the easier it will be to get on the so-called path to citizenship, I don't believe the American people will appreciate that.
No, I don't think they will. Leave the door open, or do not follow through on border security, which we can expect once things have quieted down.....

One plus in the vote last night allows for the denial of citizenshipt to "illegal" aliens that were convicted of a felony, the Washington Times said:
Last night, senators agreed to language that would bar citizenship to felons, people convicted of three misdemeanors, or anyone who had ignored a court order to leave the U.S.
I say plus, but it isn't much of a plus. Question: how does one go about collecting and deporting someone that ignores a "court order to leave the U.S.?" Isn't one of the problems with the system now that "illegals" do not report for their scheduled court date when apprehended?

Along with Texas, at least I can rest assured knowing that Jon Kyl voted yes; oddly McCain didn't vote (too busy with his speaking engagement at Columbia I guess). Here is the vote summary so we know who to jump in the parking garage.

They just don't get it do they?

How did Texas fare? Keep reading, cross posted from Red Hot Cuppa Politics:

So, the US Senate sold us down the river once again -- but at least both Texas Senators are trying to paddle us somewhere else.

From Channel4News out of Harlingen, TX:

The 40-55 roll call today by which the U-S Senate rejected a measure by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga., to make allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the United States contingent on first securing borders against new undocumented immigrants.

On this vote, a "yes" vote was a vote to add Isakson's proposal to an immigration bill and a "no" vote was a vote to reject it.

Voting "yes" were seven Democrats and 33 Republicans.

Voting "no" were 36 Democrats, 18 Republicans and one independent
John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison both voted to close the border first; they did the right thing, although the measure didn't pass. All you Texans out there need to remember that when Senator Hutchison comes up for re-election in November.

Cornyn, who's not even up for re-election this year, hasn't given up.
From the OC Register: Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who has co-authored a bill that would not give illegal immigrants a path to legalization and would require guest workers to go home, wasn't giving up just yet.

"We have just begun to fight," Cornyn said in the hall outside the chamber, laughing.
(I'm glad somebody's laughing about this, maybe he's remembering the Alamo -- FB)
Incidentally, here's a statement from the Texas RNC regarding a guest worker program:
Republican Party of Texas spokeswoman Gretchen Essell of Austin said temporary worker plans "are a reward to those who have entered our country illegally and their implementation would only encourage the continuation of such behavior.

"Guest worker programs have not worked in the past," Essell said. "For example, the Bracero Program of the 1960s was terminated because of the exploitation of Mexican workers. There is no reason to believe a new program would be any more successful.

"As far as the use of the National Guard is concerned, the Republican Party of Texas supports any action to secure our borders from those who wish to enter our country illegally."
And, here's the Texas DNC position -- given by Ms. Amber Moon (yup, you read her name right):
Texas Democratic Party spokeswoman Amber Moon said Democrats in Congress and the Texas Legislature have been more responsible than Republicans. "Deploying an over-stretched National Guard to act as Border Patrol agents is little more than a Band-Aid approach that deals with the issue symbolically and not realistically," Moon said.

"The president's poll numbers are down and his party is split, causing him to resort to an election year gimmick rather than a responsible solution.
If the Republicans were serious, they would reach across the aisle and across racial lines. Instead, they're drawing a line in the sand and creating a division between neighboring countries."
I'm still trying to get my mind around the work "responsibility" coupled with Texas Lege, God luv 'em.

But, if you're a Texan who's considering punishing Republicans by voting for a Democrat, think carefully about the Texas DNC statement I've highlighted in red. Looks to me like they would be "reaching" across lines to pull illegal immigrants over the border, assuming that our fearless Texas Dems could stay in one spot that long.

My own strategy is to vote Republican in 2006, and in Texas, that will not be difficult. But -- I'm already nosing around to see if there's a sane third party I can support for 2008, and if anyone has any ideas, please let me know, via comment or e-mail. Mental telepathy's a little uncertain, although I hear it's popular among the Kinky Friedman party faithfuls.

Meanwhile, that tapping you hear in the background is the sound of Senate Republican Gerbils hammering the nails in their collective coffin. The dull thudding is the sound of conservatives beating their heads against the wall of stupidity.

Please click to the CoalitionBlog for the latest news. Debbie, over at RightTruth is laughing to keep from crying about the President's speech, and there's a good round-up at CommonSenseAmerica. Fred offers his usual restrained, subtle commentary on the news that Mexico plans to sue if the National Guard detains "migrants."

And speaking of economics, check this out from the excellent Politics of Prudence:
A Columbia University study recently estimated that illegal immigrants cost American tax payers $68 Billion a year (e.g. welfare, heath care, incarceration, etc.)

The left-wing Center for American Progress
estimated (liberally) that it would cost $41 Billion a year for 5 years (total of $206 Billion) to deport.

So, over a 5-year period the breakdown would be:
1) Allowing illegals to remain: $340 Billion
2) Deportation: $206 Billion ... more

Well, I guess libs can't be expected to be too good with arithmetic. StetsonTip to Matthew.

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.**


© blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks